July 28, 2006

Kate Harcourt posted 24 Jun 2006, 07:00 PM

The Goat. Should a columnist who is an avowed non-theatre goer comment through hearsay on a play’s theme? I refer to Rosemary McLeod’s article in the DomPost last weekShould a columnist who is an avowed non-theatre goer comment through hearsay on a play’s theme? I refer to Rosemary McLeod’s article in the DomPost last week.

John Smythe posted 25 Jun 2006, 07:24 PM

In the Dominion Post of 15 June 2006, Rosemary McLeod’s BROADSIDE column was headed ‘Why theatre gets my goat’. I sent the letter below to the DomPost and to date neither this nor any other response to the article has been published – so now I ask the Dominion Post, why run purposely provocative opinion columns then protect your columnist from dissent? What sort of media management is that?

Who is the goat?

In bleating about Edward Albee’s The Goat or Who Is Sylvia?, currently on at Downstage, Rosemary McLeod misses the point (June 15). If anything recaptures the ‘cutting edge’ feel that characterised Downstage when she was a waitress there, it is this play and production.

Does she really think theatre that “shocks its audience with the forbidden” is a new and cynical ploy? It began with the Ancient Greeks, who invented drama as we know it. Consider Oedipus, who murders his father and marries his mother, and Medea, who murders her children. Shakespeare’s tragedies are riddled with atrocities …

Such classics are, in essence, highly moral cautionary tales and Albee’s The Goat is no exception. It rediscovers the classic purpose of theatre by brilliantly using a domestic drama setting to blend the principles of Greek tragedy and comedy. May I remind Ms McLeod that the Dionysian satyr play, in which actors wore goat skins and horns, is the mother of all satire?

For me, The Goat satirises the notion that ‘love’ justifies anything. But that is just my take on it. The play, and this truly compelling production of it, invites each of us to empathise with the very different viewpoints of all four characters and come to our own conclusions.

This is exactly why it’s a worth seeing. It separates the sheep from the goats.

JOHN SMYTHE
Brooklyn

Ron Kjestrup posted 28 Jul 2006, 02:04 PM

In response to your question, Kate, I reckon “No”.

I read the column and dismissed it because it had that “I know absoluitely nothing about my subject but I’m going to present a provocative, uniformed opinion, anyway” feel to it.

John points out her lack of historical perspective and it’s that sort of ignorance that got me writing reviews. I was sick of reviews and comments that were based either on absolutely no understanding of the context of the work or were so bloody academic they reinforced the non-theatre goers opinion that we’re all art wankers.

I’m not sure what “cutting edge” she’s looking for these days but the Goat was by all accounts a great production. Quite what she’d make of Pirendello, Beckett or the absurdists or UBU or …I’d better be careful – don’t want to sound like an art wanker. And what they hell does she think goes on in plays like Titus Andronicus!

I think she was having a bit of a go at middle class theatre goers. She has this image of a bunch of middle aged people in kaftans and paisley shirts looking to be titillated by the latest naughty bits and it’s a shame she’s missed out on a generation of fantastic local practitioners from Red Mole on who’ve reshaped our idea of what a night at the theatre is all about. Perhaps she misses the key parties – I don’t know.